S.Arumugam v. Chief Engineer/ Staff (Tangedco)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA W.P.No.35305 of 2025 S.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Chief Engineer/Staff (TANGEDCO) Chief Engineer's Office, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Chief Executive Engineer, Office of the Chief Executive Engineer, 10th East Main Road TNEB, Gandhinagar, Vellore - 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Power Distribution Circle, Katikanapally, Krishnagiri - 635 002.
4. B.Nethigiri ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent as per the letter dated 25.07.2024 and pass orders.
For Petitioner :
Ms.R.Laken Maria For Respondents :
Mr.C.Manoharan Standing Counsel (TANGEDCO) 1/5
ORDER
Mr.C.Manoharan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. With the consent of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent as per the letter dated 25.07.2024.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he had sent a complaint against the fourth respondent in respect of certain violations committed by him. However, since the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action based on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 09.09.2024, enquiry was conducted against the fourth respondent and on finding that the charges are vague, further action has been dropped and thereby, this writ petition cannot be sustained.
2/5
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner has been considered by conducting an enquiry in which charges were not proved and further action was dropped by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.63/026/ep/m/ep/nk/ep/gp/3/,/ep/c/nfh/g[fhu;kD/2025. Ehs; 12/2/2025/ Hence, no further orders are required to be passed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. In any event, if the petitioner has any grievance, he is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.
18.09.2025 dh Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order 3/5
To
1. The Chief Engineer/Staff (TANGEDCO) Chief Engineer's Office, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Chief Executive Engineer, Office of the Chief Executive Engineer, 10th East Main Road TNEB, Gandhinagar, Vellore - 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Krishnagiri Power Distribution Circle, Katikanapally, Krishnagiri - 635 002.
4/5
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J dh W.P.No.35305 of 2025 18.09.2025 5/5